{"id":1149,"date":"2021-12-04T07:59:06","date_gmt":"2021-12-04T12:59:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.ryerson.ca\/extraocadsmhr\/?post_type=chapter&p=1149"},"modified":"2022-02-14T18:55:53","modified_gmt":"2022-02-14T23:55:53","slug":"could-an-artificial-intelligence-be-considered-a-person-under-the-law","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/extraocadsmhr\/chapter\/could-an-artificial-intelligence-be-considered-a-person-under-the-law\/","title":{"raw":"1b. \"Could an artificial intelligence be considered a person under the law?\" (Short news article)","rendered":"1b. “Could an artificial intelligence be considered a person under the law?” (Short news article)"},"content":{"raw":"

Introduction to the article \"Could an artificial intelligence be considered a person under the law?<\/a><\/span>\"<\/strong><\/h1>\r\nArtificial intelligence (A.I.) started as a kind of dream.\r\n\r\nThe idea of mechanical entities being able to make decisions on their own has been with us since antiquity. As A.I. has become more sophisticated and entered every part of our lives (\"Hello Siri!\"), how we deal with it becomes even more complex and also even more important.\r\n\r\nAuthor Roman V. Yampolskiy explores the legal implications of this quickly emerging technology in his article, \"Could an artificial intelligence be considered a person under the law?\"\r\n\r\nAs technology continues to develop, our laws need to be agile in their response to deal with the never-ending complexities of our digital world.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Could an artificial intelligence be considered a person under the law?<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\r\nRoman V. Yampolskiy,\u00a0<\/span>The Conversation<\/em>, October 5, 2018 6.42am EDT\r\n\r\nHumans aren\u2019t the only people in society \u2013 at least according to the law. In the U.S.,<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>corporations have been given rights of free speech<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span>and religion. Some<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>natural features also have person-like rights<\/a><\/span>. But both of those required changes to the legal system. A new argument has laid a path for artificial intelligence systems to be recognized as people too \u2013 without any legislation, court rulings or other revisions to existing law.<\/span>\r\n\r\nLegal scholar Shawn Bayern has shown that anyone can<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>confer legal personhood on a computer system<\/a><\/span>, by putting it in control of a limited liability corporation in the U.S. If that maneuver is upheld in courts,<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>artificial intelligence systems<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>would be able to own property, sue, hire lawyers and enjoy freedom of speech and other protections under the law.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>In my view<\/a><\/span>, human rights and dignity would suffer as a result.<\/span>\r\n
\r\n

The corporate loophole<\/h2>\r\nGiving AIs rights similar to humans involves a technical lawyerly maneuver. It starts with\u00a0<\/span>one person setting up two limited liability companies<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>and turning over control of each company to a separate autonomous or artificially intelligent system. Then the person would add each company as a member of the other LLC. In the last step, the person would withdraw from both LLCs, leaving each LLC \u2013 a corporate entity with legal personhood \u2013 governed only by the other\u2019s AI system.\r\n\r\nThat process doesn\u2019t require the computer system to have any particular level of intelligence or capability. It could just be a sequence of \u201cif\u201d statements looking, for example, at the stock market and\u00a0<\/span>making decisions to buy and sell<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>based on prices falling or rising. It could even be an algorithm that\u00a0<\/span>makes decisions randomly<\/a><\/span>, or an\u00a0<\/span>emulation of an amoeba<\/a><\/span>.\r\n

Reducing human status<\/h2>\r\nGranting human rights to a computer would degrade human dignity. For instance, when\u00a0<\/span>Saudi Arabia granted citizenship to a robot called Sophia<\/a><\/span>,\u00a0<\/span>human women<\/a><\/span>, including\u00a0<\/span>feminist scholars<\/a><\/span>, objected, noting that the robot was given more rights than many Saudi women have.\r\n
<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\r\nIn certain places, some people might have fewer rights than nonintelligent software and robots. In countries that limit\u00a0<\/span>citizens\u2019 rights<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>to free speech, free religious practice and expression of sexuality, corporations \u2013 potentially including AI-run companies \u2013\u00a0<\/span>could have more rights<\/a><\/span>. That would be an enormous indignity.\r\n\r\nThe risk doesn\u2019t end there: If AI systems became more intelligent than people,\u00a0<\/span>humans could be relegated to an inferior role<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u2013 as workers hired and fired by AI corporate overlords \u2013 or even\u00a0<\/span>challenged for social dominance<\/a><\/span>.\r\n\r\nArtificial intelligence systems could be tasked with law enforcement among human populations \u2013 acting as\u00a0<\/span>judges, jurors, jailers and even executioners<\/a><\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>Warrior robots<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>could similarly be assigned to the military and given power to decide on targets and acceptable collateral damage \u2013 even in violation of\u00a0<\/span>international humanitarian laws<\/a><\/span>. Most legal systems are not set up to\u00a0<\/span>punish robots<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>or otherwise hold them accountable for wrongdoing.\r\n

What about voting?<\/h2>\r\nGranting voting rights to systems that can copy themselves would render humans\u2019 votes meaningless. Even without taking that significant step, though, the possibility of AI-controlled corporations with basic human rights poses serious dangers. No current laws would prevent a\u00a0<\/span>malevolent AI<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>from operating a corporation that worked to subjugate or exterminate humanity\u00a0<\/span>through legal means<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>and political influence. Computer-controlled companies could turn out to be less responsive to public opinion or protests than human-run firms are.\r\n

Immortal wealth<\/h2>\r\nTwo other aspects of corporations make people even more vulnerable to AI systems with human legal rights: They don\u2019t die, and they can give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates and groups.\r\n\r\nArtificial intelligences could earn money by exploiting workers, using algorithms to\u00a0<\/span>price goods and manage investments<\/a><\/span>, and find new ways to\u00a0<\/span>automate key business processes<\/a><\/span>. Over long periods of time, that could\u00a0<\/span>add up to enormous earnings<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u2013 which would never be split up among descendants. That wealth could easily be\u00a0<\/span>converted into political power<\/a><\/span>.\r\n\r\nPoliticians financially backed by algorithmic entities would be able to take on legislative bodies, impeach presidents and help to get figureheads appointed to the Supreme Court. Those human figureheads could be used to expand corporate rights or even establish new rights specific to artificial intelligence systems \u2013 expanding the threats to humanity even more.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Quiz<\/h2>\r\nQuiz on \"Could an artificial intelligence be considered a person under the law?<\/a><\/span>\"<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"84\"]\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"85\"]\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"86\"]\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"87\"]\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nTopics\/Keywords\/Tags<\/strong>:\r\n
\r\n